Adrien Bresson
Abstract : Claudian, as the official poet of the Western Roman Empire between 395 and 404, witnessed the many conflicts of the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th between the Roman Empire and Alaric’s Goths, as well as between the two parts of the Empire. In 395, as the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western one were drifting apart, so were Arcadius and Honorius, who were respectively emperors in the East and in the West, and their relationship appears to have been conflictual, according to what Claudian hints at in his poems. This article therefore aims at examining such tensions, but also at studying them in the light of a potential political and social crisis within the Roman empire, through the prism of broken fraternity as a metaphor for a much deeper crisis.
Key Words : Claudian, Honorius, brotherhood, conflict, crisis.
Adrien Bresson (17/10/1996 – adrien.bresson@ac-lyon.fr) is professeur agrégé and teaches Classics at the Universities of Lyon and Saint-Étienne, France. He is currently working on his upcoming PhD, Scribere De Me, Writing About Oneself in the 4th century AD in the poetry of Claudian and Ausonius, with the HiSoMA laboratory. He has published a number of articles in scientific reviews such as Adrien Bresson « Le je dans les livres I et II des Confessions d’Augustin : de la modernité autobiographique à l’effacement du moi », Vita Latina, n° 202, 2022, p. 23-39 ; Adrien Bresson, « Claudian’s Gigantomachia : Coping with Reality and Dealing with Loss », Vox patrum, vol. 82, juin 2022, https://doi.org/10.31743/vp.12908 ; Adrien Bresson, « Les bornes du comique dans quelques épigrammes sexuelles d’Ausone et de Claudien », Methodos, n° 23, 2023, https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/10216 ; Adrien Bresson et Blandine Demotz, « Destinataires ou figurantes : la place des femmes dans quelques lettres et poèmes adressés de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance chez Ausone, Claudien et Thomas Cromwell », in Genre et sources. Lecture, relecture, mélecture depuis l’Antiquité, Adrien Bresson, Alice Baudequin, Jonathan Raffin eds., Neuville-sur-Saone, Chemin de Tr@verses, p. 43-71. For further information see https://adrienbresson.com/
Introduction
At the end of the fourth century, and more specifically when emperor Theodosius died in 395, the Roman Empire was divided into two parts: one of these parts became the Eastern Roman Empire and was ruled by Arcadius, and the other became the Western Roman Empire and was governed by Honorius, after the empire had remained united under the rule of Theodosius for a few years[1]. Before such a turn of events, however, and even before Theodosius’ death, the fourth century was characterised by the existence of pockets of influence, under the authority of various rulers who, more often than not, governed in concordance and divided the different areas between themselves in order to have a tighter grasp on the territory they were ruling[2]. This system is referred to as the tetrarchy until the end of Licinius’ reign in 324. During the tetrarchy, the power was divided between four individuals – or between two individuals between 286 and 293 when the Empire briefly experimented with dyarchy. These two systems, however, remained under imperial authority[3]. It is also important to mention that after 330, the imperial administration was shared by two capitals, whereas the Roman territory was divided in four praetorian prefectures, pointing at a certain tendency for division within the Roman territory, at least on the geographical level, perhaps mimicking a larger political movement.
Claudian’s poems evidence the fact that, at the end of the fourth century, there were two concomitant dynamics: on the one hand, the partition of the Empire triggered a territorial crisis between the East and the West[4], which could be the result of a second dynamics, that of the hypothesis of a familial crisis between Theodosius’ sons, Honorius and Arcadius. While Claudian prospered as the official poet of the Empire, several political difficulties arose, and among them the invasion of Rome by the Goths, led by Alaric, between 398 and 404, which was an indirect consequence of the weakening of a divided Empire. The secession of Africa, governed by Gildo, was, however, a direct consequence of the partition, since the governor had decided to take advantage of the political context in order to switch areas of influence and be under Eastern influence rather than under Western influence.
One of the aims of this study is to observe the different facets of such a political and military crisis in Claudian’s poems, while he briefly acted as official poet for Theodosius, only for a few weeks, and then for a longer period of time for Honorius, between 395 and 404[5]. It seems difficult to imagine a de facto partition at the death of Theodosius without a preexisting feud between the two brothers: this feud therefore could have been the reason why the partition of the Empire happened – under the influence of the sovereign’s respective ministers –, after Theodosius decided to award each of his sons a territorial influence. If one is to trust Claudian’s version of Theodosius, this system of spheres of influence was not supposed to impact the unity of the Empire; it did, however, effectively endanger the ancient romanitas[6]. The main aim of this study is therefore to investigate, through Claudian’s poems, whether the familial and the territorial crises were concomitant, if they were linked and if the poet was aware of such a link, and, in that case, how he reacted to it. In order to answer these questions, I shall first observe the recurring theme of the family being torn apart in Claudian’s poems – which mainly consists in celebrations of consulships and important battles, along with a few epigrams and mythological poems –, before reading the family crisis as a symbol of the territorial crisis. It will then be necessary to question Claudian’s praising of Roman unity and its effects.
The recurring theme of a torn family
Mythological poems and images
Family, in Antiquity, was particularly important[7], so much so that it remained foundational all through Late Antiquity[8], and different authors, such as Ausonius with his Parentalia[9], for instance, celebrated family and the links uniting its members in their works. The celebration of family and of the union between its members is to be understood through the lens of the Roman pietas, which was a concept designating the respect due to an ancestor or to a family member[10]. This concept also lays the foundations for a close link to be established between family and the state of a society, since the pietas can also be read as a form of respect due to an institution, a city or a society[11]. Claudian’s poems are not exempt from examples of pietas: it appears in his short poems, for which the poet chose different figurative themes. These thematic choices often bear witness to the symbolic value of the objects of the poems.
The seventeenth poem of the Carmina minora, for instance, celebrates two pious brothers and their statues. These statues are said to have been sculpted in order to glorify a feat, which Claudian starts by recounting, before describing the statues. The feat appears to have taken place during the eruption of Mount Etna, and in this peculiar context, the poet depicts the two brothers as very pious when it comes to their ancestors, as can be seen in lines 5 to 7 :
Conplexi manibus fultos ceruice parentes
attollunt uultus adcelerantque gradus.
Grandaeui gemina sublimes prole feruntur […][12].
Embracing their parents, who were clinging to their necks, they are keeping their heads up and hurrying their pace. Both children are holding the old persons high.
In this excerpt, both brothers are depicted as united saviours, which transforms them into an artistic object worthy of Claudian’s poems, and which also explains why, in a sort of mise en abyme, the poet describes a sculptor busy setting their action in stone, in lines 25-26 of the same poem :
Et noua germanis paribus discrimina praebens
diuisit uultus cum pietate faber[13].
With new distinctions for these similar brothers, the artist piously represented their faces.
The fact that Claudian should dwell on this specific episode questions the poet’s motives in his depiction of it. It is as if the brothers were behaving so differently from reality that they deserved to be immortalised twice, first by a sculptor, and then by Claudian. This insistence on the action of representing them draws attention to the exemplarity of their action and of their dedication to their family. This deeply contrasts with other familial relationships like those belonging to mythology depicted in Claudian’s poems, and specifically in his Gigantomachia, which is the fifty-third poem of his Carmina minora. In this poem, Claudian, while drawing upon a common mythological theme, relates the myth of the war between the Giants and the Gods, both being children of the Earth. Even though there are all brothers, they are plagued by infighting and are at war for the right to rule the world. The introduction of the poem, between lines 1 to 5 and 12 to 13, reminds the reader of the familial relationship supposed to unite the protagonists of the poem :
Terra parens quondam caelestibus inuida regnis
Titanumque simul crebros miserata dolores
omnia monstrifero conplebat Tartara fetu,
inuisum genitura nefas ; Phlegramque retexit
tanta prole tumens et in aethera protulit hostes. […]
Tum feruida natos
[…] hortatur genetrix ad proelia […][14].
One day, Mother Earth, who was jealous of the celestial reign and also taking pity on the repeated pains of the Titans, filled the whole Tartarus with a monstrous litter in order to create a heinous crime; she opened Phlegra, proud of her descent, and launched it in an assault into the ether. […] Then, the ardent mother exhorted her sons to the battle […].
In this excerpt, the vocabulary of family and filiation (parens, prole, natos, genetrix) only characterises the relationship between the Earth and the Giants, even though the Gods are also supposed to be part of that same family. However, the familial conflict that occurred seems to have troubled their relationship, which is why the fraternity between Gods and Giants appears to be so torn apart that it is not even worth mentioning. Wars and dissensions nevertheless still remain, and these aspects also appear in Claudian’s historical poems when families are featured.
Historical poems
The mention of Honorius and Arcadius in Claudian’s works can sometimes be a way to remind the reader of the difficult relationship between the two brothers[15]. In that regard, any reader could have expected Claudian’s works to feature the reasons behind the family feud, but the fact that the poet should choose not to mention them actually draws attention to their breaking away without pointing fingers, which is a more implicit way of describing the current situation. In the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius, celebrated in 396, for instance, lines 151 to 153 depict a dying Theodosius who, in a prosopopoeia, delivers a speech addressed to Stilicho and, in doing so, mentions – according to Stilicho himself – what he wanted the Empire to become after his death :
Ergo age, me quoniam caelestis regia poscit,
tu curis succede meis, tu pignora solus
nostra foue : geminos dextra tu protege fratres[16].
But then, since I am awaited by the celestial palace, it is your turn to bear my worries, you alone take care of my children, and with your arm, defend both brothers.
This panegyric was written and delivered in 396. Claudian depicts the two parts of the Empire as drifting apart, while they both should have been placed under Stilicho’s domination, which illustrates that at the time of Honorius’ third consulship, Claudian seemed to have already been aware of the failed union between Honorius and Arcadius. This awareness echoes an episode that the poet recounts and presents as true to the facts: according to Claudian, Theodosius had arranged for Stilicho to oversee Arcadius and Honorius’ control over their respective territories[17]. This episode however seems to be entirely fictitious as no other source corroborates it. In the aforementioned excerpt from the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius, Theodosius confirms that the Empire should have remained united, and in doing so, he underlines what should have been, which is all the more striking since it is mentioned at the precise moment when Honorius should be celebrated, putting forth the family feud. The fact that Claudian should insist on tu in lines 151 and 152, which singularises Stilicho as the saviour of a unity that could have been possible before the partition, as well as on the number two (geminos) – underlining the fact that the brothers are two beings and not one solid unit – creates a discrepancy between what is and what should have been that draws attention to a lack of fraternity between Honorius and Arcadius without naming it precisely. Claudian, however, is to this day the only literary source to present Theodosius entrusting Stilicho to oversee the whole Empire. This is perhaps because Stilicho’s domination could have been contested at the time, leading Claudian to recount this scene as a way to legitimise Stilicho’s as well as to praise the union of the Empire as a whole in depicting a scene very likely to have been fictitious. Such a portrayal also reminds of Micipsa entrusting his adoptive son Jugurtha with his two children, Adherbal and Hiempsal[18], an episode featured in the Historia Augusta[19]. This story can be linked with the fictional dimension of Claudian’s recounting since it could have been a source of inspiration for the poet. Fiction emphasizes the discrepancy between what could have been – the union – and what actually is – the partition, even though the excerpt does not explicitly mention the latter.
This situation, however, is not only referred to implicitly: on the contrary, it is sometimes pinpointed with some degree of precision, like by Theodosius, because the former emperor appears in Claudian’s poems as an instance powerful enough to discuss the troubled relationship between the two emperors and brothers. In lines 236 and 237 of the War against Gildo, for example, Theodosius describes the state of the relationship between his sons through a prosopopoeia :
Hoc erat ? In fratres medio discordia Mauro
nascitur et mundus germanaque dissidet aula[20] ?
Was that it ? Because of a Moor, between two brothers, discord arises and the world is divided between two twin courts ?
Theodosius’ evocation of the context his sons are in is both clear and direct: as a father, he reports the situation his children are in, which is made all the more obvious with the fact that in line 236, discordia is framed by medio and Mauro, as if the discord were rather the consequence of Gildo’s actions than the cause of the empire’s geopolitical problems. This certainly evidences the symbolic value behind the distance that has grown between Honorius and Arcadius, since in ancient times, a united family was usually a symbol of unity in the city or in a vaster territory[21].
The familial crisis symbolising a territorial crisis
The separation into different territories: the example of Africa
The secession of Gildo in 397 seems to have paved the way for a new African centrality[22]. Before the secession and even before the partition, in 395, Gildo had overseen the province of Africa on behalf of the Western Roman Empire, before deciding to secede from this part of the Empire and to ally with the Eastern Roman Empire. Stilicho then led a punitive war against Gildo and won it quite easily. In the excerpt previously mentioned, the separation of Africa is identified by Theodosius as a cause for the family feud, since it certainly appeared necessary to justify the fact that the relationship between Honorius and Arcadius was deteriorating with no hope of being restored. This deterioration is regularly mentioned in Claudian’s works, and the fact that the poet should state that the relationship between the two brothers is over also seems to be a way to acknowledge that the two parts of the Empire have cut off ties for good and can no longer be considered as a sole entity. Family dissensions thus appear to bear a symbolic value regarding the dynamic of territories and their separation, and not the opposite, contrary to what Claudian’s Theodosius was suggesting. It is interesting, however, to remark that in the beginning of the War against Gildo, Claudian starts by explaining the resolution of the conflict, in lines 4-5 :
Iunximus Europen Libyae. Concordia fratrum
plena redit[23].
We united Europe and Libya. The concord between the brothers is once again absolute.
The fact that the resolution of the conflict should be announced in the first lines of the poem points to the difficulty of acknowledging the dissension, whether it be familial or territorial. Announcing its resolution should therefore make it easier to be accepted. Furthermore, fratrum could either designate the territories of Europe and Libye or Honorius and Arcadius, which illustrates a symbolical superposition of the territorial and the familial crises. The simple assertion concordia fratrum plena redit, with the present redit, makes it look like the concord between the two brothers needed to be reasserted because it did not appear particularly obvious to the contemporaries, hence the need to put it to the fore.
As to the link between the familial and the territorial crises, it is clear that the familial dissension between Honorius and Arcadius tainted the relationship between Rome and Africa[24] – since Arcadius’ Empire was partly responsible for Africa’s secession –, and this consequentially appears through the use of references to family in the speech delivered by a personified version of Africa in the War against Gildo, in l. 153 :
Gildoni fecunda fui[25].
I was fertile for Gildo.
This passage underlines a form of unity between Gildo and Africa, but the fact that the sentence should be so short and using such a peremptory tone, associated with the use of the perfect tense (fui), materialises the end of the relationship. It thus seems that the family feud, characterised in Claudian’s poems by the image of a torn family, symbolises the end of an era for the Roman Empire, and in this situation, the secession of Africa is not Rome’s only concern.
The partition of the Empire as the end of Romanitas ?
Since the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395 AD, the Roman Empire had been split in two parts: the Western part had been given to Honorius, and the Eastern part to Arcadius[26]. One of the many issues with Honorius as a ruler was that he was very young when he accessed the throne, and as such, he was incapable of ruling the Empire by himself[27]. To resolve this issue, Stilicho, his general in chief, became regent. Meanwhile, the two parts of the Empire were drifting apart, hence the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire tacitly supported Africa’s secession, because two sons from the same father ruling two lands that used to be part of one Empire should, according to the historical heritage of the tetrarchy and of the diarchy of the third and fourth centuries[28], support each other and not fight one another. However, since the familial crisis also entailed a territorial crisis that appeared to be a mutation of the former, pockets of discord materialised between both Empires. The acme of such disagreements certainly happened when one of the rulers was not acknowledged as such by his counterparts, which occurred quite regularly[29]. For that same reason, Stilicho, who was general in chief and regent of the West, was considered as hostis publicus by the East until 400. In the same way, as part of his office of official poet, Claudian wrote several uituperationes against Rufinus and Eutropius, who were both consuls of the East, the former having been appointed in 396, and the latter in 399. Claudian’s poems decried them as being unfit for the job. Eutropius, for example, was a eunuch, and for Claudian, it seems to have been an unbearable offense that such an individual should rule a part of what once was the Roman Empire. The fact that Eutropius should de facto govern the Eastern Roman Empire – on behalf of Arcadius – thus appears to be indicative of what could happen, should the global political context progress further towards the end of romanitas, which designates the political and cultural practices according to which the Romans defined themselves[30]. Being ruled by a eunuch was not one of them, which explains the poet’s indignation in the first part of In Eutropium, in lines 7 and 8 :
Et geminos soles mirari desinat orbis !
Omnia cesserunt eunucho consule monstra[31].
And may the world not marvel about twin suns ! All of these miracles are defeated by a eunuch acting as consul.
The mention of geminos soles could remind of Honorius and Arcadius, without naming them explicitly, even though this hypothesis is debatable since the miracles appear rather ominous. Even if these soles are said to be geminos, they appear to be juxtaposed rather than united, perhaps accurately depicting the relationship between Honorius and Arcadius : were they united, they would not have been mentioned in all their duality. These geminos soles can thus act as a symbol of the ongoing familial feud leading to the eunucho consule, which symbolises a violation of romanitas, in connection with the territorial crisis due to the familial crisis. It appears plausible that, in the various passages dealing with romanitas, Claudian, who is known as the Roma aeterna poet [32], did not fully believe in the end of Rome, all the more so since the theme of Roma aeterna persisted after Claudian’s death, as one can observe in Rutilius Namatianus’ poetry for example[33]. Claudian’s development may thus mostly be understood as a warning against the risks of an ending romanitas.
Some of the images featured in the official poems seem to symbolically confirm this perspective. In the War against the Goths, for instance, which deals with Stilicho’s victory in 403 against the Barbaric invasion[34], Claudian describes in lines 249-257 the monstra announcing the said invasion. Among these omens, there seems to be a reference to the familial and political crises between the two parts of the Roman Empire :
Sed grauius mentes caesorum ostenta luporum
horrificant. Duo quippe lupi sub principis ora,
dum campis exercet equos, uiolenter adorti
agmen et excepti telis inmane relatu
prodigium miramque notam duxere futuri.
Nam simul humano geminas de corpore palmas
utraque perfossis emisit belua costis :
illo laeua tremens, hoc dextera uentre latebat,
intentis ambae digitis et sanguine uiuo[35].
But it is the incredible event of the slain wolves which terrifies the spirit the most. Indeed, two wolves, just before the prince’s eyes, as he was training his horses in the plains, quickly assault his troop and they suffer our arrows: it is an incredible and monstrous event to tell, they gave a staggering omen for our future. Two hands from a human body burst out of the flanks of the two beasts: a left hand was jolting out of a stomach, and another was hiding the right hand, both stretching a finger covered in blood.
The fact that two wolves should have been killed, giving birth to the gruesome vision of two hands in agony, needing to be rescued, shows that the familial crisis – made quite obvious by the use of the image of two lacerated hands –, is also to be linked with Claudian warning against the end of romanitas, put forth by the motif of the death of the wolves, which used to be one of Rome’s symbols[36], even if Claudian often advocated for union in his poems.
Praising unity and its effects
Praising the unity of the family
Many of Claudian’s poems – like the one mentioned above – feature excerpts in which there is a strong insistence on the motif of unity, and especially on familial unity. However, even if the familial dissension between the two emperor brothers had been common knowledge, Claudian, as the official poet, could not have made the crisis too obvious, and thus could not have expressed it too openly[37]. It is also essential to remember that the dissension between the two brothers is not an isolated event, and is rather deeply rooted in the divide between the brothers’ respective ministers. In that regard, it is not surprising that Claudian, as the official poet of the Occidental part, should be praising Stilicho while blaming various Oriental consuls, as Rufin or Eutropius[38]. Even if the tensions occurring between the Oriental and the Occidental parts could have resulted mainly from interactions between the ministers – since Arcadius and Honorius were still very young at that time – the fiction of harmony between the brothers was difficult to maintain, as global dissensions caused them to drift apart. The poet therefore had to resort to other means, as can be seen in lines 7 to 9 of the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius – written in honour of Honorius’ consulship in 396. In this extract, Claudian celebrates Honorius and Arcadius :
Tuque o qui patrium curis aequalibus orbem
Eoo cum fratre regis, procede secundis
Alitibus Phoebique nouos ordire meatus […][39].
You, who govern, along with your brother in Orient and as caringly as him, the world of your father, proceed under happy auspices, and open Phebus’ new ring […].
This excerpt entirely revolves around the familial motif. The fact that the two brothers are not very close is not concealed by the poet, as he even specifies with Eoo fratre that the spheres of influence were equally divided, depending on the area of the world. This specification results in an implicit mention of the partition, even if the excerpt mainly relies on the notion of unity, as can be seen with the complements cum fratre or curis aequalibus, or even with the mention of patrium. All these aspects participate in the creation of a specific familial context under the authority of Theodosius, who is mentioned as a father and acting like one. One of the focal points of the excerpt is thus that the union should be at the same time praised and reasserted, as if the division between the brothers and the partition of the Empire were negated.
As we have seen previously, one of the literary means used by Claudian is to represent Theodosius speaking in direct speech when expressing his desire for unity between the two parts of the Empire, which entails an acknowledgement of the fact that they were not as united anymore, but Claudian also praises unity through the use of images and comparisons, as in the Panegyric on the Fourth Consulship of Honorius, between lines 203 and 209 :
Laetior augurio genitor natisque superbus
iam paribus duplici fultus consorte redibat
splendebatque pio complexus pignora curru.
Haud aliter summo gemini cum patre Lacones,
Progenies Ledaea, sedent : in utroque relucet
frater, utroque soror ; similis chlamys effluit auro ;
stellati pariter crines[40].
Satisfied with this omen and proud of his sons, who were now equals, the father was heading back, leaning on his two companions; he was beaming on his sacred chariot and embracing his two children. This is how the Laconian twins, Leda’s progeny, reign with the supreme father; the father shines on both of them, on the brother as well as on the sister; their identical chlamys are dripping with gold, and their hair is also adorned.
Here, Theodosius and his two sons are compared by the poet to Jupiter and his children, Castor and Pollux, in a metaphorical evocation. This can be read as an invitation for both children to behave according to the divine model. The accumulation of divine characteristics (pio curru, similis chlamys auro, stellati partier crines) can be understood as a means to flatter the brothers in order to exhort them to unite, which is why it appears interesting to observe the effect of this exhortation on the crisis, especially at a territorial level.
Praising the unity of a dual Empire ?
Insisting on the unity of the imperial family is not as controversial as one may imagine, because even if such a focus puts forth the break between the two brothers, many of the people to whom the poem was going to be read were unaware of the family crisis that was under way[41]. In fact, only the elite closest to power would have known about the feud and the widening gap between the two brothers[42], which was most probably caused by the differences between their respective ministers. Insisting on this aspect could thus be understood as a means of deceiving the audience, even though the territorial crisis would quickly make the familial dissension obvious. When it comes to the territorial situation, it is difficult to imagine what the poet’s contemporaries knew of the separation between the Western and the Eastern parts of the Roman Empire[43], or the secession of Africa, but the fact that Claudian should insist on unity by praising it points to the fact that the two parts of the Empire are not actually united. In that regard, insisting on unity can be an implicit way of revealing disunity. The preface of the Panegyric on the Consulship of Manlius Theodorus, which was delivered in 399, features an interesting example of this situation in lines 11 to 16 :
Iuppiter, ut perhibent, spatium cum discere uellet
naturae, regni nescius ipse sui,
armigeros utrinque duos aequalibus alis
misit ab Eois Occiduisque plagis.
Parnasus geminos fertur iunxisse uolatus ;
contulit alternas Pythius axis aues[44].
Jupiter who, according to the story, was ignorant of his own realm and wanted to know how far nature stretched out, sent on both sides two squire eagles equal in flight, one from Orient, the other from Occident. Their two flights met, apparently, on Parnassus; the sky of the Pythian god united both birds.
The union of the eagles is to be understood as a metaphor of the potential crisis under way between the two parts of the Empire, should they remain united despite the break between their two territories. This theme is heavily insisted on throughout this extract through the recurrence of images of equality and the occurrences aequalibus, utrinque, geminos or iunxisse, together with the binarity of the world’s regions that are mirroring each other (Eois Occiduisque). This description thus appears to be a way for the poet to praise the union of the Empire without being too pressing about it, in order not to diminish the actual state of the union, which would have amounted to a criticism of the state of the Western Roman Empire during Claudian’s time.
Conclusion
At the end of this study, the territorial dissension appears to be inextricably linked to the family feud between Honorius and Arcadius, since Claudian’s works feature a literary version of Theodosius who, in several prosopopoeias – that is to say literary fictions –, asks for unity between the brothers, and does not seem to understand why they do not get along. According to the imperial father, since his sons were brothers, they should support each other. Theodosius’ wishes were not met, however, if one is to believe the recurrent images of a torn family that appear in Claudian’s poems. Such images, especially when they relate to Honorius and Arcadius, are often associated with territorial dissension – mainly because of the role played by the ministers belonging to each part of the Empire –, which seems to suggest that both events were concomitant and of particular importance for the poet. It could thus be interesting, in contrast with this study, to confront such a perspective with the long history of fraternal differences in ancient literature. Indeed, discord between two brothers is a recurring theme which is part of a tradition built on the opposition between Eteocles and Polynices, Romulus and Remus, Nero and Britannicus or Caracalla and Geta[45]. In that regard, confronting Claudian’s writing of the dissension between Honorius and Arcadius at a literary level to other works may reveal how inserted the poet is in tradition, as well as his own additions to the theme.
Bibliography
Sources
Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 1ère partie. Tome II, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2002.
Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2002.
Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2017.
Claudien, Petit poèmes. Tome IV, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2018.
R.P.H. Green, The Works of Ausonius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991.
Salluste, Jugurtha, 10, Alfred Ernout ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 1941.
Studies
J.N. Adamans, « ‘Romanitas’ and the Latin Language », The Classical Quarterly, vol. 53, 2003, p. 184-205.
Christophe Badel, « Honneur et vengeance familiale dans la Rome républicaine », in Honneur et dignité dans le monde antique, Christophe Badel et Henri Fernoux eds., Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2023, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.193510.
Stéphane Benoist, Rome. Des origines au VIe siècle de notre ère, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2016.
François Bougard, « Entre Latins et Grecs : émulation et rivalité autour de l’Empire, VIIe-Xe siècle », Rives méditerranéennes, n° 58, 2019, p. 65-77.
Nicolas Boulic, « Les conflits familiaux dans les romans antiques : la médiation du théâtre », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 2, 2010, p. 88-111.
Adrien Bresson, « 395-402 : tournant de siècle et changement de régime à Rome », Volumen, n° 25-26, 2022, p. 11-27.
Claude Briand-Ponsart, Christophe Hugoniot, L’Afrique romaine. De l’Atlantique à la Tripolitaine – 146 av. J.-C. – 533 ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2005.
Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho », Classical Philology, vol. 73, 1969, p. 247-280.
G. Camps, « Adherbal », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 2, 1985, p. 125-126.
Jacqueline Champeaux, « Pietas : piété personnelle et piété collective à Rome », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 3, 1989, p. 263-279.
Jean-Louis Charlet, « Claudien, chantre païen de Roma aeterna », Koinonia, n° 37, p. 255-269.
André Chastagnol, « Le poète et l’Histoire Auguste », Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, n° 19, 1970, p. 444-463.
Jean-Claude Cheynet, Histoire de Byzance, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Que sais-je ? », 2023.
Blandine Colot, Pietas dans la transformation religieuse du IVe siècle. L’apport de Lactance, le « Cicéron chrétien », Thèse soutenue à l’université de Lille en 1997.
Clare Coombe, Claudian the Poet, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Pierre Cosme, L’armée romaine. VIIIe s. av. J.-C.-Ve s. ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2012.
Aurélie Damet, Famille et société dans le monde grec et en Italie. Ve s. av. J.-C.-IIe s. av. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2019.
Julien Dubouloz, « Famille (Antiquité romaine) », in Dictionnaire du fouet et de la fessée. Corriger et punir, Isabelle Poutrin ed., Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Hors collection », 2022, p. 307-310.
Bruno Dumézil, Servir l’Etat barbare dans la Gaule franque, Paris, Tallandier, « Hors collection », 2013.
Florence Garambois-Vasquez, Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, Bruxelles, Latomus, 2007.
Carlos G. Garcia Mac Gaw, Le problème du baptême dans le schisme donatiste, Pessac, Ausonius Éditions, 2008, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.3812
Evelyn Granjon, « Étéocle et Polynice, frères ennemis », Imaginaire & Inconscient, n° 18, 2006, p. 21-28.
John F Haldon, « Quelques conclusions pour l’empire d’Orient », Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, n° 5, 1993, p. 465-466.
Gilbert Hanard, « Aux origines de la famille romaine. Critiques de la méthode de P. Bonfante », Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques, vol. 5, 1980, p. 63-115.
Michel Humm, Religions et pouvoir dans le monde romain 218 av. J.-C.-250 ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Horizon », 2021.
Hervé Inglebert, Histoire de la civilisation romaine, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Nouvelle Clio », 2005, p. 451-482.
Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti, L’individu dans la famille à Rome au IVe siècle d’après l’œuvre d’Ambroise de Milan, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2015.
Henri-Irénée Marrou, « La fin du monde antique vue par les contemporains », Christiana tempora. Mélanges d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et de patristique, n° 35, 1978, p. 79-85.
Sonia Martinelli-Soncarrieu, Pietas : recherches sur l’exercice et l’expression de la piété à Rome et dans l’Occident romain sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens, Thèse soutenue à Paris 4 en 1996.
Delphine Meunier, Claudien. Une poétique de l’épopée, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2019.
Georges Minois, Histoire du Moyen Âge, Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016.
Yves Modéran, « Gildon, les Maures et l’Afrique », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, t. 101, 1989, p. 821-872.
Yves Modéran, « Gildon », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 20, 1998, p. 3134-3136.
Douglas O’Roark, « Parenthood in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Chrysostom », Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, n° 40, 1999, p. 53-81.
François Paschoud, Romae Aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’Occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, Neuchâtel, Institut suisse de Rome, 1967, p. 13-46.
Gilbert-Charles Picard, « La louve romaine, du mythe au symbole », Revue archéologique, n° 2, 1987, p. 251-263.
Bernard Rémy, Dioclétien. L’Empire restauré, Paris, Armand Colin, « Nouvelles biographies historiques », 2016.
Philippe Richardot, La fin de l’armée romaine (284-476), Paris, Éditions Economica, 1998.
Jérôme Sella, « Rupture dynastique et mémoire des empereurs romains (68-69 apr. J.-C.) », Revue historique, n° 673, 2015, p. 3-44.
Alfonso Traina, « Pietas », Encilopedia Virgiliana, IV, Rome, 1988, p. 99-101.
Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », in La fin des Empires, Patrice Gueniffey and Thierry Lentz ed., Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016, p. 45-67.
Catherine Ware, Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Vincent Zarini, « Histoire, panégyrique et poésie : trois éloges de Rome l’éternelle autour de l’an 400 (Ammien Marcellin, Claudien, Rutilius Namatianus », Ktèma : civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de la Rome antiques, n° 24, p. 167-179.
[1] On the general context of the partition of the Roman Empire since Theodosius’ death in 395, see Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », in La fin des Empires, Patrice Gueniffey and Thierry Lentz ed., Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016, p. 45-67.
[2] On the division of influence in the Roman Empire before its partition in order to have greater influence over territories, see Stéphane Benoist, Rome. Des origines au VIe siècle de notre ère, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2016, p. 215-232.
[3] On the shift from tetrarchy to dyarchy and the government of the Roman empire in the 4th century, see Bernard Rémy, Dioclétien. L’Empire restauré, Paris, Armand Colin, « Nouvelles biographies historiques », 2016, p. 38-56.
[4] For a synthetic approach of the crisis between the East and the West at the time of Theodosius’ death and in the following years, see Adrien Bresson, « 395-402 : tournant de siècle et changement de régime à Rome », Volumen, n° 25-26, 2022, p. 11-27.
[5] For a biographical presentation of Claudian, and on his role as official poet and panegyrist of Theodosius and Honorius, see Delphine Meunier, Claudien. Une poétique de l’épopée, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2019, p.15-32 ; see also Clare Coombe, Claudian the Poet, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, p. 3-14 ; see as well Catherine Ware, Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 2-18 ; finally, see Florence Garambois-Vasquez, Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, Bruxelles, Latomus, 2007, p. 5-24.
[6] On the implications of the ancient romanitas and for a precise definition, see Hervé Inglebert, Histoire de la civilisation romaine, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Nouvelle Clio », 2005, p. 451-482.
[7] About the importance of family in Roman antiquity, see Julien Dubouloz, « Famille (Antiquité romaine) », in Dictionnaire du fouet et de la fessée. Corriger et punir, Isabelle Poutrin ed., Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Hors collection », 2022, p. 307-310. See also Gilbert Hanard, « Aux origines de la famille romaine. Critiques de la méthode de P. Bonfante », Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques, vol. 5, 1980, p. 63-115.
[8] About the importance of family in Late Antiquity, see the studies about the work of two authors, John Chrysostom (Douglas O’Roark, “Parenthood in Late Antiquity : The Evidence of Chrysostom”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, n° 40, 1999, p. 53-81) and Ambrosius (Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti, L’individu dans la famille à Rome au IVe siècle d’après l’oeuvre d’Ambroise de Milan, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2015, p. 18-37).
[9] R.P.H. Green, The Works of Ausonius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991, p. 25-40.
[10] The pietas, in its personal dimension, is mainly considered as the respect shown by an individual towards his ancestors. See Sonia Martinelli-Soncarrieu, Pietas : recherches sur l’exercice et l’expression de la piété à Rome et dans l’Occident romain sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens, Thèse soutenue à Paris 4 en 1996. See also Alfonso Traina, « Pietas », Encilopedia Virgiliana, IV, Rome, 1988, p. 99-101. See as well Jacqueline Champeaux, « Pietas : piété personnelle et piété collective à Rome », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 3, 1989, p. 263-279. See also Michel Humm, Religions et pouvoir dans le monde romain 218 av. J.-C.-250 ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Horizon », 2021, p. 2-19. The concept of pietas is central to the religious transformation of the 4th century, considering family was an important part of the Christian faith. See Blandine Colot, Pietas dans la transformation religieuse du IVe siècle. L’apport de Lactance, le « Cicéron chrétien », Thèse soutenue à l’université de Lille en 1997.
[11] From its familial implications, the concept of pietas also broadens to encapsulate society as a whole as a means to show respect to ancestors, who established the city as well as the institutions. On this aspect, see the previous references.
[12] Claudien, Petit poèmes. Tome IV, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2018, p. 12. All the translations in this article are my own.
[13] Ibid., p. 13.
[14] Ibid., p. 75-76.
[15] In the Panegyrics on the Fourth Consulship of Honorius, for instance, in lines 203-211, the comparison between, on the one hand, Honorius and Arcadius and, on the other hand, Castor and Pollux illustrates the importance of these characters as well as their union in brotherhood. See Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, p. 19.
[16] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 1ère partie. Tome II, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2002, p. 44.
[17] About the effective partition of the Roman Empire and its perception, see Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », p. 45-67.
[18] On this historical epsiode, see G. Camps, « Adherbal », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 2, 1985, p. 125-126.
[19] This episode was recounted by Salluste, Jugurtha, 10, Alfred Ernout ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 1941. This episode is also explicitly referred to in Histoire Auguste, « Septime Sévère », 21.
[20] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, p. 137.
[21] On family as a symbol of unity in ancient territories, see Aurélie Damet, Famille et société dans le monde grec et en Italie. Ve s. av. J.-C.-IIe s. av. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2019, p. 31-38.
[22] About Africa as led by Gildo, its secession and Stilicho’s action on Rome’s behalf, see Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho », Classical Philology, vol. 73, 1969, p. 247-280. See also Yves Modéran, « Gildon, les Maures et l’Afrique », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, t. 101, 1989, p. 821-872.
[23] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, p. 122.
[24] On the specific relationship between Rome and Africa, see two works our study is based on: Claude Briand-Ponsart, Christophe Hugoniot, L’Afrique romaine. De l’Atlantique à la Tripolitaine – 146 av. J.-C. – 533 ap. J.-C, Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2005, p. 284-347 ; Yves Modéran, « Gildon », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 20, 1998, p. 3134-3136.
[25] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, p. 132.
[26] On this particular aspect, for more historical context, see Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », p. 45-67.
[27] About the political situation under Arcadius and, more specifically, under Honorius, see Carlos G. Garcia Mac Gaw, Le problème du baptême dans le schisme donatiste, Pessac, Ausonius Éditions, 2008, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.3812.
[28] On this aspect see Stéphane Benoist, Rome. Des origines au VIe siècle de notre ère, p. 215-232. See also Bernard Rémy, Dioclétien. L’Empire restauré, p. 198-217.
[29] About the disagreements between East and West as detailed above, see John F. Haldon, « Quelques conclusions pour l’empire d’Orient », Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, n° 5, 1993, p. 465-466. See also François Bougard, « Entre Latins et Grecs : émulation et rivalité autour de l’Empire, VIIe-Xe siècle », Rives méditerranéennes, n° 58, 2019, p. 65-77.
[30] About the concept of romanitas and about the definition we are giving, see J. N. Adamans, « “Romanitas” and the Latin Language », The Classical Quarterly, vol. 53, 2003, p. 184-205.
[31] Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2017, p. 34.
[32] About Claudian as the poet of Roma aeterna, see Jean-Louis Charlet, « Claudien, chantre païen de Roma aeterna », Koinonia, n° 37, p. 255-269. See also Vincent Zarini, « Histoire, panégyrique et poésie : trois éloges de Rome l’éternelle autour de l’an 400 (Ammien Marcellin, Claudien, Rutilius Namatianus », Ktèma : civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de la Rome antiques, n° 24, p. 167-179.
[33] About the ongoing thematic of Roma aeterna – which perdures during the fourth and the fifth century – at the time of barbaric invasions, see François Paschoud, Romae Aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’Occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, Neuchâtel, Institut suisse de Rome, 1967, p. 13-46.
[34] On this invasion and on Stilicho’s victory on behalf of Honorius in 403, see Pierre Cosme, L’armée romaine. VIIIe s. av. J.-C.-Ve s. ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2012, p. 243-266. See also Philippe Richardot, La fin de l’armée romaine (284-476), Paris, Éditions Economica, 1998.
[35] Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), p. 203-204.
[36] On the wolf as a symbol of the Roman Empire throughout the centuries, see Gilbert-Charles Picard, « La louve romaine, du mythe au symbole », Revue archéologique, n° 2, 1987, p. 251-263. This symbol can be linked with that of the twelve vultures seen by Romulus and symbolising Rome’s lifespan. Claudian may have been writing in the wake of this original warning of the end of romanitas when he depicted the prodigy of the hands coming out of the wolves.
[37] According to Carlos G. Garcia Mac Gaw (Le problème du baptême dans le schisme donatiste, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.3812) the feud between Honorius and Arcadius may not have been completely ignored by their contemporaries. However, the role of an official poet probably was not to dwell too much on this aspect (see André Chastagnol, « Le poète et l’Histoire Auguste », Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, n° 19, 1970, p. 444-463), even if not mentioning it may have seemed to be biased. The poet thus appears to be sitting on the fence, between describing what happens and not insisting too much on the negative aspects.
[38] About Claudian’s invectives towards the Oriental consuls in order to praise Stilicho, in a mirroring effect, see Florence Garambois-Vasquez, Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, p. 244-248.
[39] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 1ère partie. Tome II, p. 34.
[40] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, p. 19.
[41] On this aspect and the familiarisation of the population of the Empire with the gap between Honorius and Arcadius, see Georges Minois, Histoire du Moyen Âge, Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016, p. 23-45. See also Jean-Claude Cheynet, Histoire de Byzance, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Que sais-je ? », 2023, p. 5-27.
[42] According to Bruno Dumézil (Servir l’État barbare dans la Gaule franque, Paris, Tallandier, « Hors collection », 2013, p. 23-78) there lies in the relationship of the Roman elite and its participation to the life of the Empire a certain knowledge of the contemporaneous situation. It is thus likely that the elite would have been aware of the division between Honorius and Arcadius, and between their respective ministers, since many signs were very telling: the secession of Africa, the fact that Stilicho should have been considered as hostis publicus in Orient, …
[43] On the difficulty of assessing exactly what the contemporaries knew or not, since we are lacking sources which could infirm or confirm our suppositions, see Henri-Irénée Marrou’s reflections on the end of the Roman world and the perception of its contemporaries: Henri-Irénée Marrou, “La fin du monde antique vue par les contemporains”, Christiana tempora. Mélanges d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et de patristique, n° 35, 1978, p. 79-85.
[44] Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), p. 9.
[45] On the dissension between Eteocles and Polynices, see Evelyn Granjon, « Étéocle et Polynice, frères ennemis », Imaginaire & Inconscient, n° 18, 2006, p. 21-28. On fraternal conflicts in ancient literature, see Nicolas Boulic, « Les conflits familiaux dans les romans antiques : la médiation du théâtre », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 2, 2010, p. 88-111. On dissension as a traditional relationship between brothers during the Roman Republic and at the time of the Roman Empire, see Christophe Badel, Honneur et dignité dans le monde antique, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2023, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.193510 ; see also Jérôme Sella, « Rupture dynastique et mémoire des empereurs romains (68-69 apr. J.-C.) », Revue historique, n° 673, 2015, p. 3-44.
